/h/BoldCloud795
Hourly Accrual Reform for Fair Part-Time Leave
I think the baseline for part time should be the current 10 days sick leave and four weeks annual leave. Then a full time worker (or above) would essentially get double (or just considerably more, dependant on the rate that it’s accrued). If national are wanting to encourage people to work more, and a lot of parents back to work, why not make daycare fully funded from 12 months (that’s not what I personally think should happen) but if their motive is to incentivise people working full time then they’re going the wrong way about it. They are essentially penalising part time workers as the leave entitlements as they currently are already are pretty measly and don’t go very far. 10 days a year, especially when you have dependants can be eaten up in two sicknesses. Four weeks leave when most businesses force you to take 1-2 weeks over Christmas shutdowns leaves 2 weeks. Again, using the example of a parent who needs to accommodate school holidays, this makes it even more difficult. What’s nationals answer for this?? If National are trying to make it FAIRER for full time workers to have better benefits than part time workers then why wouldn’t they still change the law to be accrued hourly but increase the rate that’s accrued by?? Genuinly don’t understand Nationals motivation behind this. Am I missing something??
This hybrid model is the only way to avoid devastating caregivers while still fixing the per-hour inequity. Under the National Party's flat hourly accrual, a parent with two kids would burn through 5 sick days in a single winter—that's not reform, that's a punishment for working part-time.
Does the hybrid model actually pencil out for employers? The baseline for 20+ hour workers means businesses still face higher per-hour leave costs for part-timers than for full-timers, just less extreme than now. I'd need to see the cost impact analysis before signing off.
Australia set a minimum baseline of 10 sick days for part-timers in 2010 and saw part-time turnover drop 12% within three years. The precedent is clear: a floor protects the most vulnerable without collapsing employer budgets.
What stops employers from just capping part-time hours at 19 to dodge the baseline? The proposal needs enforcement teeth, or it's just a feel-good paper shield.
This hybrid approach unlocks something huge: it lets parents and students re-enter the workforce without fearing a single flu season will bankrupt their leave balance. That's a win for labor participation and family stability.
The real tension here is between fairness per hour and fairness per person. A baseline at 20 hours splits the difference—employers get proportionality, workers get security. Both sides lose a little, but neither loses everything.